I agree with SnoopJ here but I want to put a subtly different spin on this and make a somewhat more non-negotiable request of my audience.
-
@SnoopJ @glyph With respect to ideological purity, that's a much longer conversation, but I think that criticizing a tool for artists for endorsing a company founded on undermining artistic labor rights is pretty far on the "this is no longer infighting, you're no ally of mine — it's just fighting now" side of the line.
@xgranade oh yes I totally agree that this specific instance *is* an ideological impurity thing. I think this is @glyph's point (1), i.e. that Blender as an organization has a moral imperative to align *against* The Machine That Steals Artists's Work
it *feels* more open-and-shut to me than the pretty-direct analogue where the PSF accepted a donation from Anthropic in January (even if thinking about it, the act of theft feels very comparable, which… I should unpack that some more)
-
@xgranade I definitely agree that it's okay and even good that people are voicing their displeasure, but to @glyph's point, there are even more fruitful avenues: https://mastodon.social/@glyph/116484207353811439
In the context of Blender accepting money from Anthropic specifically, a lot of what bothers me and seems to resonate for other people too is that Blender is framing all this as being so excited to partner with Anthropic, and the implication that Blender agrees with Anthropic's self-description as "reliable" and amazing and blah blah
And *that* kind of thing—how an org interacts with sponsors, how partnerships are announced—is the kind of rolling org policy that gets changed by other means.
@SnoopJ @glyph A few things to that... yeah, it'd be better praxis to get involved with Blender before the bad decision was made and to help prevent that decision. No disagreement. I don't personally have the bandwidth to do that for every piece of software that artistic labor depends on, but it is in general better.
That said, I don't think that my failure to get involved with Blender in particular invalidates my criticism?
-
@xgranade @SnoopJ I am not opposed to people voicing their displeasure and I understand the criticism. In this case, my own moral calculus is such that the level of endorsement received vs. the amount of dependency induced and the amount of reputational laundering provided is a worthwhile tradeoff. But there *IS* a tradeoff, and the net result could change dramatically, of course, like if Blender were to start shipping with a Claude Code integration OOTB.
-
If you want charities to refuse "bad" donations, getting mad at the charity *at the moment of the donation* feels like a moment that has high emotional salience, but it's the wrong part of the process to raise objections effectively. But there are things you can do!
- Get involved with fundraising and find better donors (both small-dollar and big ones).
- Help with budgeting and fiscal management of the organization so they need fewer resources and can afford to refuse.@glyph Apologies, but I don't agree with either of you, and this is a rare bad take from you.
It's NEVER OK to accept gifts of any kind from groups of people who want to essentially dominate the world.
Even if they are foolish and wrong and their ambition never comes to fruition and it's just "free money", knowingly and consciously accepting gifts from people you know are causing great harm in the world taints you, irreparably.
-
@SnoopJ @glyph A few things to that... yeah, it'd be better praxis to get involved with Blender before the bad decision was made and to help prevent that decision. No disagreement. I don't personally have the bandwidth to do that for every piece of software that artistic labor depends on, but it is in general better.
That said, I don't think that my failure to get involved with Blender in particular invalidates my criticism?
@xgranade @SnoopJ Your criticism is not invalid, and I don't think you're harassing anyone, but when I said "consider the perspective of the fundraisers" I meant that quite literally. Both to be kinder to them, perhaps, but also to be more effective at influencing them, and to understand the inherently compromised nature of *being* a fundraiser in the first place. Just saying "don't take the money, this donor is bad" is the kind of thing they are used to ignoring, because *most* donors are bad
-
@xgranade @SnoopJ I am not opposed to people voicing their displeasure and I understand the criticism. In this case, my own moral calculus is such that the level of endorsement received vs. the amount of dependency induced and the amount of reputational laundering provided is a worthwhile tradeoff. But there *IS* a tradeoff, and the net result could change dramatically, of course, like if Blender were to start shipping with a Claude Code integration OOTB.
@glyph @xgranade yea. I have not stuck my own oar into the water in any way that Blender is likely to hear in part because I am personally not a member of their community. I have used the tool and I am not pleased by the news, but I am not 'of them' and feel strongly about community self-determination (cf. when outrage-tourists come round the PSF)
HOWEVER
if there were an indication here that Blender were bending their "we'll take your money and do whatever we want with it" policy, I might feel more activated to make a fuss.
-
-
@glyph @xgranade yea. I have not stuck my own oar into the water in any way that Blender is likely to hear in part because I am personally not a member of their community. I have used the tool and I am not pleased by the news, but I am not 'of them' and feel strongly about community self-determination (cf. when outrage-tourists come round the PSF)
HOWEVER
if there were an indication here that Blender were bending their "we'll take your money and do whatever we want with it" policy, I might feel more activated to make a fuss.
-
-
@SnoopJ @glyph Maybe put differently, I do understand the imperatives of fundraising. Blender may have had a hard choice, but what they chose was to betray artists at a fundamental level. That might be the least bad choice available, but it's still bad, and should be criticized on that basis.
(FWIW, I also view software dev as creative labor, and PSF's coziness with genAI companies as being similarly bad.)
-
@xgranade @SnoopJ Your criticism is not invalid, and I don't think you're harassing anyone, but when I said "consider the perspective of the fundraisers" I meant that quite literally. Both to be kinder to them, perhaps, but also to be more effective at influencing them, and to understand the inherently compromised nature of *being* a fundraiser in the first place. Just saying "don't take the money, this donor is bad" is the kind of thing they are used to ignoring, because *most* donors are bad
@glyph @xgranade and not to put too fine a point on it, but large communities are also used to ignoring the surge of sudden outrage over an announcement, because they know it'll ebb, and whatever sentiment is left *after that* will be what actually influences organizational behaviors.
I didn't mean to come across like anything you were saying was invalid, and I think it's not-nothing to speak up now even if I think it's a bad trade of psychic energy for most folks (*especially* those who are not members of the community or intending to become one)
-
-
@glyph Apologies, but I don't agree with either of you, and this is a rare bad take from you.
It's NEVER OK to accept gifts of any kind from groups of people who want to essentially dominate the world.
Even if they are foolish and wrong and their ambition never comes to fruition and it's just "free money", knowingly and consciously accepting gifts from people you know are causing great harm in the world taints you, irreparably.
@distractal I appreciate the respectful expression of this disagreement but the generalized "NEVER OK" form of this as a moral principle is incoherent.
For example, USAID was a projection of US soft power, a much more explicit way to "dominate the world" than any company donating to an open source project.
Would you suggest that DOGE did a net-good thing in the world by destroying it, because the people who were receiving its help are now dying rather than morally compromised?
